Butrflynet wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Butrflynet wrote:What party tradition is Obama bucking now that Hillary avoided bucking in 2004?
The more I think about it, the more I realize you're probably right. There is no real tradition of waiting your turn with the Democrats.
1)
JFK didn't.
2)
McGovern didn't.
3)
Jimmy Carter didn't.
4)
Walter Mondale was the Establishment candidate
5) Dukakis rose to the top of a field called "The Seven Dwarfs"
6) Bill Clinton, but there weren't any Establishment candidate who wanted to run against George HW Bush that year
7)
Gore was the Establishment candidate
8)
John Kerry was the Establishment candidate
What qualifies Hillary Clinton as the Democrat Party's "Establishment Candidate? And, which of those qualifications places her above any others?
Huh?
Her husband was the president of the US and leader of the party for 8 years. There are a lot of prominent Democrats who came into the limelight and power during his eight year term. Since he left office he has remained one of the most influential members of the party and a fundraiser for a number of Democrats currently in office. Terry McAuliffe, a huge supporter of the Clintons was a powerful chairman of the party from 2001 through 2005. He is a great fundraiser who during his tenure the party finally got into the financial black. He is owed a lot of favors.
What "qualifies" someone for being the Establishment candidate doesn't make them more qualified than any other candidate to be president. Some, obviously, believe the status actually makes them less qualified, but I think that's simply an issue of connotation.
Being the Establishment candidate is an advantage to the extent that ties to the political powers can be beneficial e.g. Super-delegates.
